Opinions differ over what has caused the cooling in relations. Iranian explanations include everything from the natural and unavoidable conflict between the Islamic Revolution on the one hand, and perceived American arrogance[7] and desire for global hegemony on the other.[8] Other explanations include the Iranian government's need for an external bogeyman to furnish a pretext for domestic repression against pro-democratic forces and to bind the government to its loyal constituency.[9]

Since 1995, the United States has had an embargo on trade with Iran.[10] In 2015 the United States led successful negotiations for a nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) intended to dismantle Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, and when Iran complied in 2016, sanctions on Iran were lifted.[11][12]

According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 5% of Americans view Iranian influence positively, with 87% expressing a negative view, the most unfavorable perception of Iran in the world.[13] On the other hand, research has shown that most Iranians hold a positive attitude about the American people, though not the U.S. government.[14][15] Relations tend to improve when the two countries have overlapping goals, such as repelling Sunni militants.[16]

The Treaty of Commerce and Navigations (signed in 1856) was the first diplomatic interaction the United States and Persia had. The treaty lasted until 1928. Because the U.S. had little interest in Persian affairs, while U.S. as a trustworthy outsider did not suffer. The Persians again sought the U.S. for help in straightening out its finances after World War I. This mission unlike the last was opposed by powerful vested interests and eventually it was withdrawn with its task uncompleted. Following this there was no special U.S. concern with Iran or any interaction until World War II.[23]

Political relations between Persia and the United States began when the Shah of Persia, Nassereddin Shah Qajar, officially dispatched Persia's first ambassador, Mirza Abolhasan Shirazi, to Washington D.C. in 1856."[24] In 1883, Samuel G. W. Benjamin was appointed by the United States as the first official diplomatic envoy to Iran, however; Ambassadorial relations were not established until 1944.[24]

Amir Kabir, Prime Minister under Nasereddin Shah, also initiated direct contacts with the American government in Washington. By the end of the 19th century, negotiations were underway for an American company to establish a railway system from the Persian Gulf to Tehran.

Until World War II, relations between Iran and the United States remained cordial. As a result, many Iranians sympathetic to the Persian Constitutional Revolution came to view the U.S. as a "third force" in their struggle to break free of British and Russian dominance in Persian affairs.[citation needed] American industrial and business leaders were supportive of Persia's drive to modernize its economy and free itself from British and Russian influence.

In 1909, during the Persian Constitutional Revolution, Howard Baskerville, an American, died in Tabriz while trying to help the constitutionalists in a battle against royalist forces. After the Iranian parliament appointed American financial consultant Morgan Shuster as appointed Treasurer General of Persia in 1911, an American was killed in Tehran by henchmen thought to be affiliated with Russian or British interests. Shuster became even more active in supporting the Constitutional revolution of Persia financially.[25] When Iran's government ordered Shu'a al-Saltaneh (شعاع السلطنه), the Shah's brother who was aligned with the goals of Imperial Russia in Persia, to surrender his assets, Shuster moved to execute the seizure. Imperial Russia immediately landed troops in Bandar Anzali, demanding a recourse and apology from the Persian government. Russia's General Liakhov subsequently shelled Iran's parliament in Tehran as part of actions to protect Russia's interests during the chain of events, and Morgan Shuster was forced to resign under British and Russian pressure. Shuster's book The Strangling of Persia is a recount of the details of these events and is critical of Britain and Imperial Russia.

The American Embassy first reported to the Iran desk at the Foreign Office in London about the popular view of Britain's involvement in the 1921 coup that brought Reza Shah to power.[26][27] A British Embassy report from 1932 admits that the British put Reza Shah "on the throne". At that time, Persia did not view the United States as an ally of Britain.

In 1936, Iran withdrew its ambassador in Washington after the publication of an article criticizing Reza Shah in the New York Daily Herald.[28] The withdrawal lasted for nearly one year.[28]

Morgan Shuster was soon followed by Arthur Millspaugh, who was appointed Treasurer General by Reza Shah, and Arthur Pope, who was a main driving force behind the Persian Empire revivalist policies of Reza Shah. The friendly relations between the United States and Iran lasted until the 1950s.

In 1941 the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran deposed the believed to be Axis leaning Reza Shah and established a supply route of war material to the USSR. From 1942 US troops were involved in the operation of this Persian Corridor one of the routes through which the US delivered Lend Lease supplies to the USSR.

The last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, maintained close ties with the United States during most of his reign, which lasted from 1941 until he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. He pursued a modernizing economic policy, and a strongly pro-American foreign policy; he also made a number of visits to America, where he was regarded as a friend.[citation needed]

Iran's long border with America's Cold War rival, the Soviet Union, and its position as the largest, most powerful country in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, made Iran a "pillar" of US foreign policy in the Middle East.[29] Prior to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many Iranian students and other citizens resided in the United States, and had a positive and welcoming attitude towards America and Americans.[3] The other way around, from 1950 to 1979, an estimated 800,000 to 850,000 Americans had visited or lived in Iran, and had often expressed their admiration for the Iranian people.[3]

In 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown by a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-organized coup, in what has been called "a crucial turning point both in Iran's modern history and in U.S. Iran relations." Many Iranians argue that "the 1953 coup and the extensive U.S. support for the shah in subsequent years were largely responsible for the shah's arbitrary rule," which led to the "deeply anti-American character" of the 1979 revolution.[30]

Until the outbreak of World War II, the United States had no active policy toward Iran.[31] When the Cold War began, the United States was alarmed by the attempt by the Soviet Union to set up separatist states in Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, as well as its demand for military rights to the Dardanelles in 1946. This fear was enhanced by the "loss of China" to communism, the uncovering of Soviet spy rings, and the start of the Korean War.[32]

In 1952 and 1953, the Abadan Crisis took place when Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq began nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Established by the British in the early 20th century, the company shared profits (85% for Britain, and 15% for Iran), but the company withheld their financial records from the Iranian government. By 1951, Iranians supported nationalization of the AIOC, and Parliament unanimously agreed to nationalize its holding of, what was at the time, the British Empire’s largest company. The British retaliated with an embargo on Iranian oil, which was supported by international oil companies. Over the following months, negotiations over control and compensation for the oil were deadlocked, and Iran's economy deteriorated.

American President Truman pressed Britain to moderate its position in the negotiations and to not invade Iran. American policies created a feeling in Iran that the United States was on Mosaddeq's side and optimism that the oil dispute would soon be settled with "a series of innovative proposals to settle" the dispute, giving Iran "significant amounts of economic aid". Mosaddeq visited Washington, and the American government made "frequent statements expressing support for him."[33]

At the same time, the United States honored the British embargo and, without Truman's knowledge, the CIA station in Tehran had been "carrying out covert activities" against Mosaddeq and the National Front "at least since the summer of 1952".[34]

As the Cold War intensified, oil negotiations stalled, and the Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower replaced Democratic President Harry S. Truman, the United States helped destabilize Mosaddeq on the theory that "rising internal tensions and continued deterioration ... might lead to a breakdown of government authority and open the way for at least a gradual assumption of control" by Iran's well organized Tudeh communist party.[35] In spring and summer 1953, the United States and Britain, through a covert operation of the CIA called Operation Ajax, conducted from the American Embassy in Tehran, helped organize a coup d'état to overthrow the Mossadeq government. The operation initially failed, and the Shah fled to Italy, but a second attempt succeeded, and Mosaddeq was imprisoned.

According to a study of the coup headed by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne, intended "to resolve" the "controversy" over who and what were responsible, "it was geostrategic considerations, rather than a desire to destroy Mosaddeq's movement, to establish a dictatorship in Iran or to gain control over Iran's oil, that persuaded U.S. officials to undertake the coup."[36]

President Lyndon Johnson welcoming the Shah at the White House while Iranians protest, 1967

Following the coup, the United States helped re-install the Shah. In the first three weeks, the American government gave Iran $68 million in emergency aid, and an additional $1.2 billion over the next decade.[37] In this era that ensued, until the fall of the shah in 1979, Iran was one of the United States' closest allies.[4][5][6] The US also played a critical role in founding the Shah's brutal secret police to keep him in power. A U.S. Army colonel working for the CIA was sent to Persia in September 1953 to guide local personnel in creating the organization[38][39] and in March 1955, the Army colonel was "replaced with a more permanent team of five career CIA officers, including specialists in covert operations, intelligence analysis, and counterintelligence, including Major GeneralHerbert Norman Schwarzkopf who "trained virtually all of the first generation of SAVAK personnel." In 1956 this agency was reorganized and given the name Sazeman-e Ettela'at va Amniyat-e Keshvar (SAVAK).[39] These in turn were replaced by SAVAK's own instructors in 1965.[40][41]

The Shah received significant American support during his reign, and frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his Modernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardcore Islamic conservatives.[42]

In America, the coup was originally considered a triumph of covert action but is now considered by many to have left "a haunting and terrible legacy."[43] In 2000, U.S. Secretary of StateMadeleine Albright, called it a "setback for democratic government" in Iran.[44] Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei condemned the admission as "deceitful", complaining that it "did not even include an apology".[45]

The US helped Iran create its nuclear program starting in 1957 by providing Iran its first nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel, and after 1967 by providing Iran with weapons grade enriched uranium. [46][47] The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the last Shah of Iran.[48] Iran's nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. [49] The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the last Shah of Iran.[48]

In the 1960s and 1970s, Iran's oil revenues grew considerably. Starting in the mid-1960s, this "weakened U.S. influence in Iranian politics" while strengthening the power of the Iranian state vis-a-vis the Iranian public. According to scholar Homa Katouzian, this put the United States "in the contradictory position of being regarded" by the Iranian public because of the 1953 coup "as the chief architect and instructor of the regime," while "its real influence" in domestic Iranian politics and policies "declined considerably".[52]

In the late 1970s, American President Jimmy Carter emphasized human rights in his foreign policy, including the Shah's regime, which by 1977 had garnered unfavorable publicity in the international community for its human rights record.[53] That year, the Shah responded to Carter's "polite reminder" by granting amnesty to some prisoners and allowing the Red Cross to visit prisons. Through 1977, liberal opposition formed organizations and issued open letters denouncing the Shah's regime.[54][55]

At the same time, Carter angered anti-Shah Iranians with a New Years Eve 1978 toast to the Shah in which he said:

Under the Shah’s brilliant leadership Iran is an island of stability in one of the most troublesome regions of the world. There is no other state figure whom I could appreciate and like more.[56]

Observers disagree over the nature of United States policy toward Iran under Carter as the Shah's regime crumbled. According to historian Nikki Keddie, the Carter administration followed "no clear policy" on Iran.[57] The American ambassador to Iran, William H. Sullivan, recalled that the U.S. National Security AdvisorZbigniew Brzezinski "repeatedly assured Pahlavi that the U.S. backed him fully". On November 4, 1978, Brzezinski called the Shah to tell him that the United States would "back him to the hilt." At the same time, high-level officials in the State Department believed the revolution was unstoppable.[58] After visiting the Shah in summer of 1978, Secretary of the Treasury W. Michael Blumenthal complained of the Shah's emotional collapse, reporting, "You've got a zombie out there."[59] Brzezinski and Energy SecretaryJames Schlesinger were adamant in their assurances that the Shah would receive military support.

Another scholar, sociologist Charles Kurzman, argues that, rather than being indecisive or sympathetic to the revolution, the Carter administration was consistently supportive of the Shah and urged the Iranian military to stage a "last-resort coup d'etat" even after the regime's cause was hopeless.[60][61]

The 1979 Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader AyatollahRuhollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest".[62] Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that "Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a 'prerevolutionary' situation."[63]

Revolutionary students feared the power of the United States—particularly its Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow a new Iranian government. One source of this concern was a book by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. titled Countercoup: The Struggle for Control of Iran. Many students had read excerpts from the book and thought that the CIA would attempt to implement this countercoup strategy.[64]

Khomeini, who referred to America as the "Great Satan",[65] instantly got rid of the Shah’s prime minister and replaced him with a moderate politician called Mehdi Bazargan. Until this point, the Carter Administration was still hoping for normal relationships with Iran, sending its National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The Islamic revolutionaries wished to extradite and execute the ousted Shah, and Carter refused to give him any further support or help return him to power. The Shah, suffering from terminal cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran opposed the request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States.[55] However, President Carter agreed to let the Shah in, after severe pressure from Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller and other pro-Shah political figures. Iranians’ suspicion that the Shah was actually trying to conspire against the Iranian Revolution grew; thus, this incident was often used by the Iranian revolutionaries to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet, and this led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.[55]

Vice President George H. W. Bush and other VIPs wait to welcome the former hostages to Iran home

On November 4, 1979, the revolutionary group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, angered that the recently deposed Shah had been allowed into the United States, occupied the American embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage. The 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against American influence in Iran and the liberal-moderate interim government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, who opposed the hostage taking and resigned soon after. Some Iranians were concerned that the United States may have been plotting another coup against their country in 1979 from the American embassy.[66] In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as a violation of a centuries-old principle of international law that granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy.[67]

The United States military attempted a rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw, on April 24, 1980, which resulted in an aborted mission and the deaths of eight American military men. The crisis ended with the signing of the Algiers Accords in Algeria on January 19, 1981. On January 20, 1981, the date the treaty was signed, the hostages were released. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (located in The Hague, Netherlands) was established for the purpose of handling claims of American nationals against Iran and of Iranian nationals against the United States. American contact with Iran through The Hague covers only legal matters. The crisis led to lasting economic and diplomatic damage.

On April 7, 1980, Carter severed diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and they have been frozen ever since. Since 21 May 1980, Switzerland has been the protecting power for the United States in Iran. Contrary to usual practice, the U.S. Embassy was not given into the charge of the Swiss Embassy. Instead, parts of the embassy complex have been turned into an anti-American museum, while other parts have become offices for student organizations.[68] Iranian interests in the U.S. were initially represented by the Algerian Embassy. However, Iran later chose Pakistan to be its protecting power in the United States.

Before the Revolution, the United States was Iran's foremost economic and military partner. This facilitated the modernization of Iran's infrastructure and industry, with as many as 30,000 American expatriates residing in the country in a technical, consulting, or teaching capacity. Some analysts argue that the transformation may have been too rapid, fueling unrest and discontent among an important part of the population in the country and leading to the Revolution in 1979.

After the 1979 seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, the United States froze about $12 billion in Iranian assets, including bank deposits, gold and other properties. According to American officials, most of those were released in 1981 as part of the deal to release the hostages. Some assets—Iranian officials say $10 billion, but U.S. officials say much less—remain frozen, pending resolution of legal claims arising from the Revolution.

Commercial relations between Iran and the United States are restricted by American sanctions and consist mainly of Iranian purchases of food, spare parts, and medical products as well as American purchases of carpets and food. Sanctions originally imposed in 1995 by President Bill Clinton were renewed by President Bush, who cited the "unusual and extraordinary threat" to American national security posed by Iran. The 1995 executive orders prohibit American companies and their foreign subsidiaries from conducting business with Iran, while banning any "contract for the financing of the development of petroleum resources located in Iran". In addition, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA) imposed mandatory and discretionary sanctions on non-American companies investing more than $20 million annually in the Iranian oil and natural gas sectors.

The ILSA was renewed for five more years in 2001. Congressional bills signed in 2006 extended and added provisions to the act; on September 30, 2006, the act was renamed the Iran Sanctions Act (ISA), as it no longer applied to Libya, and extended until December 31, 2011.

American intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in arming Iraq in the Iran–Iraq War, although Bob Woodward states that the United States gave information to both sides, hoping "to engineer a stalemate".[69] In search for a new set or order in this region, the US government adopted a policy designed to contain both Iran and Iraq economically and militarily in favor of the US's national interest.[70] During the second half of the Iran–Iraq War, the Reagan Administration pursued several sanction bills against Iran; on the other hand, it established full diplomatic relations with Saddam Hussein's government by removing it from the U.S. list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in 1984.[70] According to the American Senate Banking Committee, the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous dual-use items, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.[71] The Iran–Iraq War ended with both agreeing to a ceasefire in 1988. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret for that support.[72]

United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack in a 2003 case brought by the victims' families. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation.[74] An American federal court has also found that the Khobar Towers bombing was authorized by Ali Khamenei, then ayatollah of Iran.[75]

In 1983, the U.S. helped bring to the attention of Tehran the threat inherent in the extensive infiltration of the government by the communist Tudeh Party and Soviet or pro-Soviet cadres in the country. Using this information, the Khomeini government took measures, including mass executions, that virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran.[76]

In violation of an arms embargo, officials of President Ronald Reagan's administration officials arranged in the mid-1980s to sell armaments to Iran in an attempt to improve relations with Iran and obtain their influence in the release of hostages held in Lebanon. Oliver North of the National Security Council then diverted proceeds from the arms sale to fund Contra rebels attempting to overthrow the left wing government of Nicaragua, which was in direct violation of the United States Congress' Boland Amendment.[77][78] In November 1986, Reagan issued a televised statement that the arms sales did not occur.[79] One week later, he confirmed that weapons had been transferred to Iran, but denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.[78] A later investigation noted that documents relating to the affair were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[80]

In 1988, the United States launched Operation Praying Mantis against Iran, claiming that it was retaliation for the Iranian mining of areas of the Persian Gulf as part of the Iran–Iraq War. The American attack was the largest American naval combat operation since World War II.[81] American action began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups that neutralized the Sassan oil platform and the Sirri oil platform of Iran. Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat. Damage to the oil platforms was eventually repaired.[82] Iran sued for reparations at the International Court of Justice, stating that the United States breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The court dismissed the claim but noted that "the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on October 19, 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and April 18, 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America."[83] The American attack helped pressure Iran to agree to a ceasefire with Iraq later that summer.[84]

On July 3, 1988, near the end of the Iran–Iraq War, the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iranian AirbusA300B2, which was on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. The attack killed 290 civilians from six nations, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will. The United States initially contended that flight 655 was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both statements were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access.[85][86] According to the Iranian government, the attack was an intentional and unlawful act. Iran refused to accept the idea of mistaken identification, arguing that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, because the aircraft was not on a trajectory that threatened the Vincennes and had not aimed radar at it.[87] The United States has expressed regret for the loss of innocent life but has not apologized to the Iranian government.[88] The men of the Vincennes were all awarded Combat Action Ribbons for completion of their tours in a combat zone. Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, received the Navy Commendation Medal, often given for acts of heroism or meritorious service, but a not-uncommon end-of-tour medal for a second tour division officer. According to the History Channel, the medal citation noted his ability to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure."[89] However, in 1990, The Washington Post listed Lustig's awards as one being for his entire tour from 1984 to 1988 and the other for his actions relating to the surface engagement with Iranian gunboats. In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." The award was given for his service as the Commanding Officer of the Vincennes, and the citation made no mention of the downing of Iran Air 655.[90]

Newly elected President George H. W. Bush had announced a “goodwill begets goodwill” gesture in his inaugural speech on January 29, 1989. The Bush administration urged Rafsanjani to use Iran’s “considerable political capital in Lebanon” to obtain the release of the remaining US hostages held by Hezbollah. Bush indicated there would be a reciprocal gesture toward Iran by the United States.1 Iran’s new leadership had also lowered its rhetoric against the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf and had not as yet endorsed Sunni fundamentalist groups like Hamas. Rafsanjani indicated Iran would support whatever agreement the Palestinians settled on with Israel. Bush’s national Security advisor Brent Scowcroft had said, in late 1991, it might be possible to take Iran off the terrorist list, reduce economic sanctions, and further compensate Iranians for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian Airbus jet with a missile launched by a United States ship in July 1988, by mistake. (All 290 Iranian passengers and crew had been killed.) Scowcroft indicated the administration was even considering allowing the sale of some airplanes and parts and easing other economic sanctions on Iran.2 Bush did not respond to Iran’s gesture, even after the last hostage, reporter Terry Anderson, was finally released in December 1991. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had been known as the CIA’s “hardliner” on the Soviet Union and Iran and had previously urged Bush not to respond to Iran’s goodwill gestures. Gates argued, “We have to look at the history of outreach (to Iran) that was very real, under successive presidents, yet did not yield any results.” Gates’ vetoing of the Bush plan to reciprocate Iran’s goodwill gesture was, as he explained later to Congress, developed because “new intelligence showed Iran was seeking weapons of mass destruction and planning terrorist attacks.” Gates often repeated in CIA staff meetings that the “only moderate Iranian is one who has run out of bullets.”3 Rafsanjani never forgave the Americans for Bush’s reneging on his promise of goodwill after the hostages were released or for Iran’s exclusion from the Madrid (and Oslo) Conferences.4 1. . George H. W. Bush, Inaugural Address, US House of Representatives, Washington DC, January 29, 1989, accessed March 2011, http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres63. 2. Parsi, Treacherous Alliance, p.165. 3. Gareth Porter, “Is Gates Undermining Another Opening to Iran?” Asia Times Online, July 14, 2009, accessed March 2011, 4. David Crist, The Twilight War: The Secret History of America’s Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran (New York: The Penguin Press, 2012): 408-409.

In April 1995, a total embargo on dealings with Iran by American companies was imposed by Bill Clinton. This ended trade, which had been growing following the end of the Iran–Iraq War.[91] The next year, the American Congress passed the Iran-Libya Sanctions act, designed to prevent other countries from making large investments in Iranian energy. The act was denounced by the European Union as invalid,[citation needed] but it blocked some investment for Iran.

In January 1998, newly elected Iranian President Mohammad Khatami called for a "dialogue of civilizations" with the United States in a CNN interview. In the interview, Khatami invoked Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America to explain the similarities between American and Iranian quests for freedom. American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded positively, and the countries exchanged of wrestling teams. This also brought freer travel between the countries as well as an end to the American embargo of Iranian carpets and pistachios. Relations then stalled due to opposition from Iranian conservatives and American preconditions for discussions, including changes in Iranian policy on Israel, nuclear energy, and support for terrorism.[92]

On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, Iran's fifth president, Mohammad Khatami meeting British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, said: "Iran fully understands the feelings of the Americans about the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11." He said although the American administrations had been at best indifferent about terrorist operations in Iran (since 1979), the Iranians instead felt differently and had expressed their sympathetic feelings with bereaved Americans in the tragic incidents in the two cities. He also stated that "Nations should not be punished in place of terrorists." [94] According to Radio Farda's website, when the attacks' news was released, some Iranian citizens gathered in front of the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran, which serves as the protecting power of the United States in Iran (US interests protecting office in Iran), to express their sympathy and some of them lit candles as a symbol of mourning. This piece of news at Radio Farda's website also states that in 2011, on the anniversary of the attacks, United States Department of State, published a post at its blog, in which the Department thanked Iranian people for their sympathy and stated that they would never forget Iranian people's kindness on those harsh days.[95] After the attacks, both the President and the Supreme Leader of Iran, condemned the attacks. BBC and Time magazine published reports on holding candlelit vigils for the victims by Iranian citizens at their websites.[96][97] According to Politico magazine, following the attacks, Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, "suspended the usual “Death to America” chants at Friday prayers" temporarily. The military forces of the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran cooperated with each other to overthrow Taliban regime which had conflicts with the government of Iran.[98] Iran's Quds Force helped US forces and Afghan rebels in 2001 uprising in Herat.[99][100]

On January 29, 2002 – 4 months after 9/11, US President Bush gave his "Axis of evil" speech, describing Iran, along with North Korea and Iraq, as an axis of evil and warning that the proliferation of long-range missiles developed by these countries constituted terrorism and threatened the United States. The speech caused outrage in Iran and was condemned by reformists and conservatives.[101]

Since 2003, the United States has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles, launched from Iraq, over Iran to obtain intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, reportedly providing little new information.[102] The Iranian government has described the surveillance as illegal.[103]

On May 4, 2003, the Swiss government sent the U.S. State Department an "unusual", unsigned, one-page memorandum, which was not on official letterhead, and also contained a cover letter by Swiss diplomat Tim Guldimannn, which laid out a "Roadmap" for discussions between Iran and the U.S. Under the heading of "U.S. aims," the document stated that Iran was willing to put "the following aims on the agenda": Accepting "the two-states approach" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ending "material support to Palestinian opposition groups ... from Iranian territory," pressuring Hezbollah "to become an exclusively political and social organization within Lebanon," supporting "political stabilization and the establishment of democratic institutions" in Iraq, taking "decisive action against any terrorists (above all al Qaeda) on Iranian territory," and fully cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure "there are no Iranian endeavors to develop or possess WMD." Under the heading of "Iran aims," the document stated "the U.S. accepts a dialogue ... and agrees that Iran puts the following aims on the agenda": Ending U.S. efforts to change "the political system" in Iran, abolishing "all sanctions," taking action against the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MKO), recognizing "Iran's legitimate security interests in the region," and granting Iran "access to peaceful nuclear technology, biotechnology and chemical technology." In the cover letter, Guldimann claimed that he developed the "Roadmap" with Sadeq Kharrazi, "the Iranian ambassador in Paris," and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei "agreed with 85-90% of the paper," although he could not obtain "a precise answer on what exactly the Leader explicitly has agreed."[104][105][106] The Bush administration did not respond to the proposal, although in March 2004 President Bush sent Mohamed ElBaradei to Tehran with the message that "an Iranian representative with the authority to make a deal should go to the U.S. and Bush himself would personally lead" negotiations to "resolve all the issues between us;" according to Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian leadership decided "that we should not negotiate with the U.S.," even though "the Americans had taken the first step."[105][107]

Nevertheless, in 2007, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff and others popularized the notion that "hard-liners in the Bush administration killed discussion" of an Iranian "Grand Bargain" that "could have saved lives in Iraq, isolated Palestinian terrorists and encouraged civil society groups in Iran," with Kristoff concluding: "The record indicates that officials from the repressive, duplicitous government of Iran pursued peace more energetically and diplomatically than senior Bush administration officials—which makes me ache for my country."[108][109] Kristoff claimed "Iran also sent its own master text of the proposal to the State Department and, through an intermediary, to the White House."[108] However, available evidence casts doubt on the genuineness of this proposal, which may have merely been an invention of Guldimann, who sought to promote U.S.-Iran rapprochement.[105][106] For example, Michael Rubin noted that "Guldimann told different people different things about the document's origin," while "the Swiss Foreign Ministry refused to back up Guldimann's account."[110] Iranian and U.S. officials were engaged in a series of secret, high-level negotiations during 2003, and Iran's UN ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif had met with U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad on May 3—one day prior to the State Department receiving the alleged "Grand Bargain."[105][106]Glenn Kessler asked "If Iran was serious, why would such an important diplomatic undertaking be transmitted in such a haphazard way through the Swiss ambassador when one of the supposed co-authors was already holding senior-level talks with U.S. officials?"[105] Similarly, Rubin declared: "Guldimann's ignorance of these ongoing discussions exposed his fraud."[106] Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recounted that U.S. officials "couldn't determine what was the Iranians' and what was the Swiss ambassador's" and "nothing that we were seeing in this fax was in consonance with what we were hearing face to face,"[109][111] former National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley called the "Grand Bargain" "the result of freelancing by a Swiss diplomat hoping to be the one to make peace between Iran and the United States,"[112] and a State Department spokesman described the document as "a creative exercise on the part of the Swiss ambassador."[111] In a March 30, 2006 email to Trita Parsi, Zarif confessed: "The claims and counter claims about the source of the proposals and motivations of intermediaries remain a mystery for me. What I think is important is the fact that Iran was prepared."[113]

In August 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president. On 8 May 2006, he sent a personal letter to President Bush to propose "new ways" to end Iran's nuclear dispute.[118] U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley both dismissed it as a negotiating ploy and publicity stunt that did not address American concerns about Iran's nuclear program.[119] Ahmadinejad later said that "the letter was an invitation to monotheism and justice, which are common to all divine prophets".[120]

Bush insisted in August 2006 that "there must be consequences" for Iran's continued enrichment of uranium. He said that "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."[121] Ahmadinejad invited Bush to a debate at the UN General Assembly, which was to take place on September 18, 2006. The debate was to be about Iran's right to enrich uranium. The invitation was promptly rejected by White House spokesman Tony Snow, who said "There's not going to be a steel-cage grudge match between the President and Ahmadinejad".[122]

Columbia University students protesting against the university's decision to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the university campus

In November 2006, Ahmadinejad wrote an open letter to the American people,[123] stating that dialogue was urgently needed because of American activities in the Middle East and that the United States was concealing the truth about relations.[124]

In September 2007, Ahmadinejad addressed the UN General Assembly. Prior to this, he gave a speech at Columbia University, where university president Lee Bollinger used his introduction to portray the Iranian leader as "astonishingly uneducated" and as a "cruel and petty dictator". Ahmadinejad answered a query about the treatment of gays in Iran by saying: "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it". An aide later stated that he was misrepresented and was actually saying that "compared to American society, we don't have many homosexuals".[125] Ahmadinejad was not permitted to lay a wreath at the World Trade Center site. He stated, "Many innocent people were killed there. Some of those people were American citizens, obviously...We obviously are very much against any terrorist action and any killing. And also we are very much against any plots to sow the seeds of discord among nations. Usually, you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps to air your views about the root causes of such incidents." When told that Americans believed that Iran exported terrorism and would be offended by the "photo op", he replied, "Well, I'm amazed. How can you speak for the whole of the American nation?...You are representing a media and you're a reporter. The American nation is made up of 300 million people. There are different points of view over there".[126]

In an April 2008 speech, Ahmadinejad described the September 11 attacks as a "suspect event", saying that all that happened was that "a building collapsed". He stated that the death toll was never published, that the victims' names were never published, and that the attacks were used subsequently as pretext for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.[127] That October, he expressed happiness about the 2008 global economic crisis and what he called "collapse of liberalism". He said the West has been driven to a dead-end and that Iran was proud "to put an end to liberal economy".[128] The previous month, he had told the UN General Assembly, "The American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders".[129]

Since 2003, the United States has alleged that Iran has a program to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. The United States's position is that "a nuclear-armed Iran is not acceptable",[130] but officials have denied that the United States is preparing for an imminent strike. The United Kingdom (UK), France and Germany have also attempted to negotiate a cessation of nuclear enrichment activities by Iran.[131]

In June 2005, Condoleezza Rice said that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) head Mohamed ElBaradei should either "toughen his stance on Iran" or not be chosen for a third term as IAEA head.[132] Both the United States and Iran are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States and other countries were alleged during the May 2005 NPT meeting to be in violation of the NPT through Article VI, which requires them to disarm. The IAEA has stated that Iran is in violation of a Safeguards Agreement related to the NPT, due to insufficient reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use.[133] Under Article IV, the treaty gives non-nuclear states the right to develop civilian nuclear energy programs.[134] From 2003 to early 2006, tensions mounted between the United States and Iran while IAEA inspections of sensitive nuclear industry sites in Iran continued.

On March 8, 2006, American and European representatives noted that Iran has enough unenriched uranium hexafluoride gas to make ten atomic bombs, adding that it was "time for the Security Council to act".[135] The unenriched uranium cannot be used either in the Bushehr reactor, which is a pressurized water reactor, nor in atomic bombs, unless it becomes enriched.

Conservative and pro-Israeli lobbyist groups such as AIPAC state that, "American policy must unabashedly seek to prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. A nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel and would arm the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with the ultimate weapon."[136]

In 2006, the United States passed the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated millions of dollars for human rights Non-governmental organization (NGOs) working in Iran. Several politicians in both countries have claimed the Act is a "stepping stone to war",[137] although the Act prohibits the use of force against Iran.

In May 2007, Iran's top diplomat Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki stated that Iran is "ready to talk" to the United States.[138] That month, Iran announced willingness, under certain conditions, to improve its relations with the United States despite having passed up the opportunity for direct talks at the Iraq conference in Sharm El-Sheikh on May 3, 2007. The conference had been seen by the Americans as an opportunity to get closer to the Iranians and exchange gestures in a public forum.[139]

In March 2006, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK), an opposition group closely linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) killed 24 members of the Iranian security forces. The PEJAK is linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which is listed by the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Dennis Kucinich stated in an April 18, 2006, letter to Bush that PEJAK was supported and coordinated by the United States, since it is based in Iraq, which is under the de facto control of American military forces. In November 2006, journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker supported this claim, stating that the American military and the Israelis are giving the group equipment, training, and targeting information in order to create internal pressures in Iran.[140]

The United States has escalated its covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.[143] They state that Bush sought up to $400,000,000 for these military operations, which were described in a secret Presidential Finding and are designed to destabilize Iran's religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since 2007. The scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have been significantly expanded in 2008.[143]

Iran has been accused by the United States of giving weapons and support to the Iraqi insurgency (which includes the terrorist group al-Qaeda). The United States State Department states that weapons are smuggled into Iraq and used to arm Iran's allies among the Shiite militias, including those of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.[144] Evidence for this is that weapons, including mortars, rockets and munitions bear Iranian markings. U.S. commanders report that these bombs inflicted 30 percent of all American military casualties in Iraq excluding Anbar province, where these weapons have not been found. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence has obtained satellite photographs of three training camps for Iraqi insurgents near Iran's capital where they are allegedly trained guerilla tactics, kidnapping and assassination.[145]

Admiral and United States Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell stated in an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations that there is overwhelming evidence that Iran is arming the insurgency in Iraq, "The Iranians today, we have clear evidence, are providing the very weapons that are causing U.S. servicemen and women to die. That’s clear, that’s not refuted, that’s not hawkish, that’s not shaded. That is the fact." He stated that Iran is providing explosively formed projectiles, a deadly weapon to the Shiite militants in Iraq.[146] During his address to the United States Congress on September 11, 2007, Commanding officer for the United States forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus noted that the multinational forces in Iraq have found that Iran's Quds force has provided training, equipment, funding, and direction to terrorists. "When we captured the leaders of these so-called special groups … and the deputy commander of a Lebanese Hezbollah department that was created to support their efforts in Iraq, we’ve learned a great deal about how Iran has, in fact, supported these elements and how those elements have carried out violent acts against our forces, Iraqi forces and innocent civilians."[147] In a speech on 31 January 2007, Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri al-Maliki stated that Iran was supporting attacks against Coalition forces in Iraq.[148]

Pushing for international sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program, the United States accused Iran of providing logistical and financial support to Shi'a militias in Iraq. Iran denied this claim.[151] The American government imposed sanctions on an Iranian bank on September 8, 2006, barring it from direct or indirect dealings with American financial institutions. The move against Bank Saderat Iran was announced by the undersecretary for treasury, who accused the bank of transferring funds for terrorist groups, including $50,000,000 to Hezbollah. While Iranian financial institutions are barred from directly accessing the American financial system, they are permitted to do so indirectly through banks in other countries. He said the United States government would also persuade European financial institutions not to deal with Iran.[152]

In 2007, US forces raided the Iranian Consulate General located in Erbil, Iraq and arrested five staff members. Sources[who?] said that American forces landed their helicopters around the building, broke through the consulate’s gate, disarmed the guards, confiscated documents, arrested five staff members, and left for an undisclosed location. People living in the neighborhood were told they could not leave their homes. Three people who left their homes were arrested, and a wife of one of these men confirmed her husband's arrest.

At a hearing in Iraq on January 11, 2007, United States Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Rice that the Bush Administration did not have the authority to send American troops on cross-border raids. Biden said, "I believe the present authorization granted the president to use force in Iraq does not cover that, and he does need congressional authority to do that. I just want to set that marker".[153] Biden sent a follow-up letter to the White House asking for an explanation on the matter.

The same day, Iran's foreign ministry sent a letter to Iraq's foreign ministry, asking Iraq to stop the United States from interfering with Iraq-Iran relations. The official said, "We expect the Iraqi government to take immediate measures to set the aforesaid individuals free and to condemn the US troopers for the measure. Following up on the case and releasing the arrestees is a responsibility of primarily the Iraqi government and then the local government and officials of the Iraqi Kurdistan".[citation needed]

On November 9, American forces released two Iranian diplomats after 305 days,[154] as well as seven other Iranian citizens. The officials were captured in the raid, and the others had been picked up in different parts of the country and held for periods ranging from three months to three years.[155] American officials said, "The release followed a careful review of individual records to determine if they posed a security threat to Iraq, and if their detention was of continued intelligence value".[155] American forces still hold 11 Iranian diplomats and citizens.[citation needed]

The United States has opposed the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) based on "the group's growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East".[156] The United States branded the IRGC a terrorist organization,[157] and Iran responded by declaring the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Army to be terrorist organizations.[158] The Iranian resolution cited American involvement in dropping nuclear bombs in Japan in World War II, using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, bombing and killing Iraqi civilians, and torturing terror suspects in prisons.[159]

The IRGC was placed on the FTO for instigating and supporting insurgencies in Iraq resulting the death of American soldiers.[160]

The IRGC is operating through its Quds force in other countries in the region and in conjunction with other terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. They "share a similar world view and strategic vision and are seeking to exploit the current unrest in the region to their advantage" as one Senior U.S. administration officials explained in a teleconference briefing on May 31, 2013, discussing the increase in the IRGC, and Hezbollah's terrorist activities worldwide.[161]

The U.S. State Department Special Briefing also warned against increasing involvement of the IRGC forces in the Syrian conflict:

We believe this is an alarming trend. It’s borne out by the facts and it merits closer inspection as we evaluate the landscape of terrorist activity globally. Add to this, of course, is the deepening commitment both Iran and Hezbollah have made to fight and kill on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria. That involvement, of course, is hardening the conflict and threatening to spread the violence across the region.

Hezbollah and the Iranian leadership share a similar world view and strategic vision and are seeking to exploit the current unrest in the region to their advantage. This approach has increased sectarian tensions and conflict and serves further as a destabilizing force during a time of great change throughout the region.[162]

Michael Rubin, a senior research fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, said he feared the IRGC designation "might exculpate the rest of the regime when, in reality, the IRGC's activities cannot be separated from the state leadership of Supreme Leader Khamenei or President Ahmadinejad".[163] The Iranian newspaper Kayhan quoted the commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards as threatening to deal heavier blows against the United States in response to the designation.[164]Mohammad Khatami, former Reforms Front Iranian President hoped to "remind those in the U.S. Congress or elsewhere working for the benefit of the American nation to stand against these measures or the wall between the two countries grow taller and thicker".[165]

This is the first time that official armed units of sovereign states are included in a list of banned terrorist groups.[166] Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, a former consultant to the UN's program of Dialogue Among Civilizations,[167] stated in Asia Times Online that the move has possible legal implications: "Under international law, it could be challenged as illegal, and untenable, by isolating a branch of the Iranian government for selective targeting. This is contrary to the 1981 Algiers Accord's pledge of non-interference in Iran's internal affairs by the US government".[168] News leaks about the prospective designation worried European governments and private sector firms, which could face prosecution in American courts for working with the IRGC.[169]

The American government has stated that naval stand-offs between Iranian speedboats and American warships occurred in the Strait of Hormuz in December 2007 and January 2008. American officials accused Iran of harassing and provoking their naval vessels, but Iran denied the claim. The United States presented audio and video footage of the incident, which included threats made to the Americans. Iranians have told The Washington Post that the accent in the recording does not sound Iranian. Iran has accused the United States of creating a "media fuss" and has released its own abridged video recording of the incident, which does not contain threats.[85][170][171] There has been significant confusion as to the source of the threatening radio transmissions. According to the newspaper Navy Times, the incident could have been caused by a locally famous heckler known as the "Filipino Monkey".[172][173][174]

A meeting in Baghdad between Iranian and American diplomats was "the first formal direct contact after decades during which neither country has been willing to talk to the other."[178]Asia Times commentator Kaveh L Afrasiabi noted that success in United States-Iran nuclear negotiations depends on Iranian perception of American respect.[179]

A former Iranian diplomat, Nosratollah Tajik, was arrested in the UK and accused by the United States of smuggling arms. He initially appeared in court on April 19, 2007, fighting extradition to the US.[180] The case is still ongoing.[181]

In January 2009, The New York Times reported that the United States had rejected a 2008 appeal from Israel to attack Iran's main nuclear complex.[182]

Two days after Barack Obama was elected president in November 2008, Ahmadinejad issued the first congratulatory message to a newly elected American president since 1979: "Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in U.S. policies and conducts. I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem".[184]

In his inaugural speech, President Obama said:

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Ahmadinejad issued a list of grievances, including the 1953 coup, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran–Iraq War, and the Iran Air Flight 655 incident.[185] In March 2009, an official delegation of Hollywood actors and filmmakers met with their Iranian counterparts in Tehran as a symbol of United States–Iran relations, but Javad Shamghadri, the Arts Adviser to Ahmadinejad, rejected it and said, "Representatives of Iran’s film industry should only have an official meeting with representatives of the academy and Hollywood if they apologize for the insults and accusations against the Iranian nation during the past 30 years".[186]

On March 19, 2009, the beginning of the festival of Nowruz, Obama spoke directly to the Iranian people in a video saying, "The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right—but it comes with real responsibilities".[187]

On October 7, 2015, other than this year's nuclear deal, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that no further negotiations between the two countries will ever occur.[188]

In April 2009, Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicting of spying for the United States. She was accused of possessing a classified document but denied the charge. After spending four months in prison, she was released in May, and the charge was dropped.[189][190]

On July 9, 2009, the United States released five Iranian diplomats (Mohsen Bagheri, Mahmoud Farhadi, Majid Ghaemi, Majid Dagheri and Abbas Jami), who had been held since January 2007.[191] Some analysts believe this was a part of hostage exchange deal between the countries.[192] The U.S. State Department said the release was not part of a deal with Iran but was necessary under an American-Iraqi security pact.[193]

On June 12, 2009, Obama said of the Iranian presidential election: "We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran".[194] Ahmadinejad's landslide win, which led to fraud allegations and widespread protests, received little comment from the United States. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs stated, "Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities".[195] Vice President Joe Biden said, "It sure looks like the way they're suppressing speech, the way they're suppressing crowds, the way in which people are being treated, that there's some real doubt".[196] On June 15, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly declared that the US was "deeply troubled by the reports of violent arrests and possible voting irregularities".[197]

Since the beginning of the War in Afghanistan, the United States believes that Al-Qaeda operatives have snuck into Iran. The United States has expressed concern about Iran possibly letting these prisoners leave the country, in violation of a UN treaty.[199]

American and Iranian foreign affairs ministers shaking hands at the end of successful negotiations about future of Iran nuclear program, Vienna

The U.S. and Iran, collectively with the P5+1, signed a comprehensive agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear program in July 2015.[200]

Following the agreement, the U.S. endorsed a U.N. Security Council resolution recognizing Iran's right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme. Iran reaffirmed its commitment against pursuing any nuclear weapon.[201] Under the agreement, the "breakout time" — the time in which it would be possible for Iran to make enough nuclear fissle material for a single nuclear weapon — will increase from two to three months to one year; this would be in place for ten years.[202]

Once the IAEA has verified that Iran has reduced its uranium stockpile and centrifuges and disclosed information about its past nuclear-related activities, the UNSC, U.S. and EU will lift economic sanctions against Iran.[203]

Iranian nuclear scientist Shahram Amiri disappeared in May 2009, and Iran accused the United States of abducting him. On the July 13, 2010, the BBC reported that Amiri had taken refuge in the Iranian interests section of Pakistani Embassy in Washington, D.C. and sought help to reach Iran.[204] However, after his return to Iran, he was sentenced to ten years in prison[205] and in August 2016 was reported to have been executed for treason.[206]

On 4 December 2011, an American Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel UAV operated by the CIA was captured by Iranian forces near the city of Kashmar. Iran claimed the drone was not only flying in sovereign airspace, but was commandeered by its cyber warfare unit and safely brought to the ground. The US initially claimed the drone had malfunctioned and crashed in Iranian airspace, only to later admit the drone was intact anonymously when footage was shown on Iranian television.[207]

In November 2012, an Iranian Su-25 fighter jet fired on a similar MQ-1 over international waters. In November 2012, two Iranian Su-25s fired on a US drone over the Persian Gulf. The Su-25s fired at least two bursts of cannon fire, and after the drone began moving away, the Iranian aircraft chased it and did aerial loops around it before breaking off and returning to base. On 12 March 2013, an Iranian F-4 fighter jet began pursuing a US MQ-1 over international waters. The F-4 was warned against coming closer by two US fighter jets, at which point it broke off.[208][209]

On December 28, 2011, Iranian navy chief Admiral Habibollah Sayyari was reported to have said that it would be "very easy" for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz.[210]

On Jan 3, 2012 Iran's army chief Ataollah Salehi warned "We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf". However, this was laterly denied by the Defense Minister of Iran.[211] The warship is believed to be the American aircraft carrier the USS John C. Stennis which recently vacated the area as Iran conducted a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz. Salehi was also quoted as saying "We have no plan to begin any irrational act but we are ready against any threat."[212] The US Navy responded that it will continue with its regularly scheduled deployments, in accordance with international maritime conventions.[213]

In 2012, the United States Navy was warned that Iran was preparing suicide attack boats and was building up its naval forces in the Gulf region. At a briefing in Bahrain, Vice Admiral Mark Fox told reporters the US Navy's Fifth Fleet could prevent Iran from blocking the Strait of Hormuz.[214]

Iran's modern navy consists of both its regular navy and a naval component of its Revolutionary Guard Corps, the latter of which has strongly focused on the development of asymmetric capabilities. This focus was largely born of the Iran–Iraq War (and, more specifically, during the Tanker War of 1984–88), when Iran attempted to control shipping through the SoH.[215] In order to close the strait, the Iranian navy would have to rely on its arsenal of Anti Ship Cruise Missiles and submarine laid Naval Mines to deny passage through the strait, as well as deny any efforts by the United States Fifth Fleet to re-open the strait. The fact that Iran had specifically built up its Navy's capabilities to match this intent does give this threat some credibility. A brief summary of the Iranian Navy's capabilities are as follows:

Surface vessels: Although Iran does have a small number of conventional surface ships such as corvettes and missile boats, it has also built or acquired many small- and medium-size fast attack craft (FAC). These FACs typically have the capability to carry armaments such as heavy machine guns or rocket launchers, as well as torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. Some are also equipped to act as covert minelayers. Iran would likely use these small boats as "swarms" in order to overwhelm a larger ship's defenses.

Submarines and torpedoes: Iran has three KILO-class diesel-electric submarines, as well as seven YONO-class, and one NAHANG-class, midget submarines. These submarines are most likely intended to be used for mine-laying, as well as special and anti-shipping operations. Iran also has a recently expanded torpedo capability.

Missiles and rockets: Iran prides itself on having a large arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). This arsenal includes: variants of the Chinese Silkworm missile; extended-range variants of the Rad missile (a follow-on to the Seersucker) that can perform evasive maneuvers and carry warheads up to 500 kg (1,000 lbs); the Noor missile, which is an upgraded version of the Chinese C-802 and is deployed in mobile batteries along Iran's coast and islands; and the diverse Kosar series of small ASCMs which are reportedly truck-mounted and deployed on Iran's Gulf islands. With this suite of missiles, Iran can target any part of the SoH, and much of the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman as well. Iran also maintains a number of rocket systems (some of which are gyro-stabilized for use on boats), as well as shore-based artillery rockets (the Fajr series). Many of these systems would be based along the relatively mountainous Iranian coastline, which lends itself well to the shielding and bunkering of such assets.

Naval mines: The Iranian navy fully appreciates the power of the naval mine and considers mine-laying one of its most important missions. As such, Iran has procured or produced a wide variety of naval mines (an estimated 2,000 in total), to include: bottom-moored contact mines; moored and bottom influence mines using magnetic, acoustic, and pressure fuses; limpet mines for special operations; drifting mines; and remote-controlled mines. In terms of minelayers, Iran could use its submarines and conventional navy ships, but realistically almost any boat can lay mines, and Iran would likely also use small boats and civilian vessels to do so.

The actual ability of Iran to close the strait has been questioned numerous times, with estimates of the time that Iran would be able to sustain the closure ranging from a few days[216] to over a hundred days[217] Anthony Cordesman concluded in 2007 that Iran could not close the strait for more than 2 weeks even if it was willing to sacrifice all its naval assets. On the other hand, in another study conducted by Talmadge in 2008, she analysed the capability of Iran to conduct the area denial operation against the capability of the US to reopen the gulf with minimal threat to forces. The conclusion of that study was a timeline of between 37 and 112 days overall.

In April 2016, US Supreme Court ruled Iran must pay almost $2bn to victims of 1983 Beirut barracks bombings.[218] In response, Iranian parliament voted a bill that would obligate the government to claim compensation from the United States for its hostile actions against Iran (including 1953 Iranian coup d'état and United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war).[219] Under the rules of combat, U.S. troops have no clear legal right to sue. But the judge ruled that the troops were on a peacekeeping mission under peacetime rules of engagement. Therefore, survivors and family members could sue Iran under a 1996 law that allows U.S. citizens to take legal action against nations that sponsor terrorism.[220]

Iranian citizens were temporary banned from entering the United States by the executive order "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States." On late April 18, 2017 the Trump Administration certified that Iran had continued to comply with the JCPOA.[221] During his campaign, Trump had denounced the agreement as "the worst deal ever negotiated" and a "disaster" that could lead to a "nuclear holocaust", and his running mate Mike Pence promised to rip it up.[222][221]

The Trump administration boasted that Trump personally lobbied dozens of European officials against doing business with Iran during the May 2017 Brussels summit; this likely violated the terms of the JCPOA, which expressly states that the U.S. may not pursue "any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran." The Trump administration again certified in July 2017 that Iran had continued to uphold its end of the agreement.[223]

In July 2017, Xiyue Wang, a Chinese American graduate student and researcher at Princeton University, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "infiltration" in Iran, raising the tensions between Iran and the Trump administration.[224]

The visit by President Hassan Rouhani of Iran to New York City in September 2013 was hailed as major progress in Iran's relations with United States. Rouhani previously said that his government was ready to hold talks with the United States after thirty two years.[225] However, he rejected U.S. President Barack Obama's request for a meeting with him. On 27 September, a day after the two countries' foreign ministers met during the P5+1 and Iran talks, Rouhani and Obama spoke by telephone, the two countries' highest political exchange since 1979.[226][227] The call led to protests by Iranian conservatives who chanted "death to America" when Rouhani returned to Tehran.[228] On the 34th anniversary of the embassy siege, tens of thousands of supporters of a more hardline approach to relations gathered at the site of the former U.S. embassy to denounce rapprochement. It was the largest such gathering in recent years. Conversely, a majority of Iranian citizens saw the progression of peace talks with the United States as a sign of hope for a future of an alliance between the two nations.[229]

On the 23 July 2015, Barack Obama announced his intention to restore diplomatic relations between the two nations following the agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. This was welcomed by Hassan Rouhani. In August 2015, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry labeled Iran the "number one state sponsor of terror in the world".[230]

Although most of Iranians thought they are extending their bilateral relations beyond the agreement, Iran's Supreme Leader said: "Tehran will not negotiate with the United States on any issue after the nuclear talks."[231]

On September 28, 2015, an unplanned and "accidental" encounter between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif occurred on the sidelines of a luncheon at the United Nations General Assembly, with the two men reportedly shaking hands. It was the first handshake between a U.S. President and a top Iranian diplomat since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was present, also introduced Obama to two senior Iranian officials also involved in the JCPOA nuclear negotiations. The exchange was originally reported in Iranian media and was said to have lasted "less than a minute"; it was immediately condemned by conservative Iranian MP Mansour Haghighatpour, a member of the committee on national security and foreign policy, who called for Zarif to publicly apologize.[232]

Trade between Iran and the United States reached $623 million in 2008. According to the United States Census Bureau, American exports to Iran reached $93 million in 2007 and $537 million in 2008. American imports from Iran decreased from $148 million in 2007 to $86 million in 2008.[233][234] This data does not include trade conducted through third countries to circumvent the trade embargo. It has been reported that the United States Treasury Department has granted nearly 10,000 special licenses to American companies over the past decade to conduct business with Iran.[235]

In May 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama lifted a trade embargo of communications equipment and software to non-government Iranians.[236] In June 2013, the Obama administration expanded its sanctions against Iran, targeting its auto industry and, for the first time, its currency.[237]

As of January 2014, the successful conclusion and implementation of an interim diplomatic agreement restricting Iranian nuclear development, negotiated between Iran and major world powers in Geneva, has led to the release of some of Iran's frozen overseas assets as well as a partial lifting of sanctions previously placed upon Iranian trade in automotive parts, petrochemicals, and precious metals. The United States government has also pledged to continue renewing the exemptions to oil sanctions currently enjoyed by states such as India and South Korea, key customers of the Iranian oil sector. Restrictions placed upon the insurance against loss of Iranian seagoing vessels have also been waived at the completion of the 2013 agreements in Geneva.

According to a 2014-study by NIAC, sanctions cost U.S. over $175b in lost trade and 279,000 lost job opportunities.[238]

The tentative rapprochement between Iran and the US, which began in the second half of 2013, has the potential to become a world-changing development, and unleash tremendous geopolitical and economic opportunities, if it is sustained. Tehran and Washington have been bitter enemies since 1979, when the Iranian Revolution overthrew the pro-American Shah and replaced him with a virulently anti-American Islamist regime. Since then, Iran has been at the vanguard of countries actively challenging the US-led world order. This has led to instability in the Middle East, and Iran's relative isolation in international affairs. Yet, if Iran and the US were to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East could decline sharply, and Iran could come to be perceived as a promising emerging market in its own right.

— Business Monitor International (January 2014)

Fourth match between Iran and The United States in 2015 FIVB World League

^ abJenkins, Philip. (2006). Decade of Nightmares : The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America page 153. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN978-0198039723

^ abLittle, Douglas. (2009). American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945. page 145. Univ of North Carolina Press. ISBN978-0807877616

It is natural that our Islamic system should be viewed as an enemy and an intolerable rival by such an oppressive power as the United States, which is trying to establish a global dictatorship and further its own interests by dominating other nations and trampling on their rights. It is also clear that the conflict and confrontation between the two is something natural and unavoidable. [Address by Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, to students at Shahid Beheshti University, May 12, 2003]

To give up this trump card—the non-relationship with the United States, the easy evocation of an external bogeyman—would be costly for the Iranian leadership. It would be a Gorbachevian signal that the revolution is entering a dramatically new phase—one Iran's leaders cannot be certain of surviving in power.

^Bhabani Sen Gupta (1987). The Persian Gulf and South Asia: prospects and problems of inter-regional cooperation. South Asian Publishers. p. 158. ISBN978-81-7003-077-5. Shias constitute seventy-five percent of the population of the Gulf. Of this, ninety-five percent of Iranians and sixty of Iraqis are Shias.

^CIA World Factbook. "Iran". Archived from the original on 3 February 2012. Retrieved 7 August 2012.

^Heikal, Iran: The Untold Story (1982), p. 23. "It was abundantly clear to me that the students were obsessed with the idea that the Americans might be preparing to mount another counter-coup. Memories of 1953 were uppermost in their minds. They all knew about Kermit Roosevelt's book Countercoup, and most of them had read extracts from it. Although, largely owing to intervention by the British, who were anxious that the part they and the oil company had played in organizing the coup should not become known, this book had been withdrawn before publication, a few copies of it had got out and been duplicated."